DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of prior-filed application is acknowledged under 35 U.S.C 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Application 63/088,741, filed 07 October 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 March 2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 11 March 2023 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, limitation (d) recites “determining a common contact frame whose original lies at a center of pressure” renders the claim as indefinite. The term “original” is an adjective but is improperly used here as a noun to describe the structural feature or spatial point of the “common contact frame.” Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Applicant may amend the claim such that the term “original” is replaced with the term “origin”. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 recites “wherein an object in the one or more objects is defined as an object”, which states that the object can be any object within the one or more objects and fails to further limit the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-10 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of simulating the contact dynamics of a robot, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of “fitting geometric shape primitives combined through composition operations for each of the one or more body links and each of the one or more objects the one or more body links are interacting with” covers mathematical concepts including analyzing a dataset and using that dataset to map geometric shape primitives that can be combined together. Alternatively, this limitation covers mental processes including analyzing a dataset and using that dataset to map geometric shape primitives that can be combined together, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation “determining a distance between each of the fitted geometric shape primitives” covers mathematical concepts including calculating the distance between the fitted geometric shape primitives. Alternatively, this limitation covers mental processes including measuring the distance between the fitted geometric shape primitives with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation of “determining contact surfaces for each pair of the fitted geometric shape primitives where the distance is zero or below a threshold” covers determining where each pair of the shape primitives the contact will occur through the use of mathematical equations. Alternatively, this limitation covers mental processes including determining where each pair of the shape primitives the contact will occur through the use of mathematical equations, which can be performed with the use of a pencil or paper. Additionally, the limitation “determining a common contact frame whose original lies at a center of pressure, wherein the center of pressure is computed at each of the determined contact surfaces” covers mathematical concepts including calculating the center of pressure using equations and applying coordinates to determine the common contact frame. Alternatively, the limitation covers mental processes including applying equations to calculating the center of pressure using equations and applying coordinates to determine the common contact frame, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper. Additionally, the limitation “determining a contact force vector and a contact moment vector at each of the common contact frames” covers mathematical concepts including using equations to calculate the contact force and contact moment vectors. Additionally, this limitation covers mental processes including using equations to calculate the contact force and contact moment vectors, which can be performed with the use of a pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-10 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 1-10 lack recitation of additional limitations which would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the common contact frame, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the geometric characteristics of each contact surface, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to applying the contact force and contact moment vectors to further compute projected dynamics, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claims 5 and 6 are directed to further defining the geometric shape primitive, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining the composition operation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the forces applied onto each common contact frame, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining the constraints for determining a contact force and a torque for each common contact frame, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes” or alternatively “Mathematical Concepts.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining an object in the one or more objects, which further discloses the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes”.
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2020/0301500 A1, hereafter W in view of U.S. Patent Application 2019/0121426 A1, hereafter M.
Regarding Claim 1: W discloses a method of determining contact dynamics at an interface of a robot having one or more body links interacting with one or more objects, comprising:
fitting geometric shape primitives combined through composition operations for each of the one or more body links and each of the one or more objects the one or more body links are interacting with;
W [0047] “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the one or more virtual manipulators 34 may take the form of a graphical representation of a hand. However, it should be appreciated that the one or more virtual manipulators 34 may take other suitable forms, such as, for example, grasping tools, claws, robotic arms, etc. The virtual manipulator controller 36 may be configured to control the graphical representation of the hand based on the tracked position of the user's hand.”
W [0077] “In the illustrated example, the processor 12 generated a sphere as the simplified geometric representation 72 to represent the virtual object 40 shown in the examples of FIGS. 5A and 5B. However, it should be appreciated that the processor 12 may be configured to generate other types of idealized geometry to represent the virtual objects 40. For example, the simplified geometric representation 72 may take the form of a rectangular box, a cylinder, a cone, or another idealized geometric shape that has fewer indices and vertices than the mesh of the virtual object 40. The processor 12 may be configured to perform all of the techniques and functions described herein on the simplified geometric representation 72, and then correspondingly apply any movements or transformations calculated for the simplified geometric representation 72 to the virtual object 40.”
W [FIG. 5A & 5B] Virtual object 40 is displayed as a union of the cylindrical shape of a cup and a handle.
W [0054] “In the illustrated example, the portion 58 is a pointer finger of the virtual manipulator taking the form of a graphical representation of a hand. However, it should be appreciated that the portion 58 may take other forms, such as, for example, two or more phalanges of the graphical representation of the hand, claws on a robot representation of the virtual manipulator, etc.”
determining a distance between each of the fitted geometric shape primitives;
W [0094] “At 1604, the method 1600 may include calculating an initial scaling distance 82A between the first scaling frame of reference 80A and the second scaling frame of reference 80B for the initial state of the system 41. As illustrated with reference to FIG. 17A, the initial scaling distance 82A may be calculated by determining a line between the first and second scaling frames of reference 80A and 80B.”
determining contact surfaces for each pair of the fitted geometric shape primitives where the distance is zero or below a threshold;
W [0051] “The physics engine 42 may include a collision detection module 54 configured to detect contacts between the virtual manipulator 34 and surfaces of the one or more virtual objects 40. In one example, a contact between a portion of a virtual manipulator and a surface of a virtual object 40 may be detected based on determining that the portion of the virtual manipulator penetrates the surface of the virtual object. In another example, the contact may be determined based on detecting that the portion of the virtual manipulator, such as, for example, a contact point on the virtual manipulator, is within a threshold distance of a surface of the virtual object. It should be appreciated that other types of collision detection processes and techniques may be used by the collision detection module 54 to detect contacts between virtual manipulators and virtual objects.”
determining a common contact frame whose original lies at a center of pressure, wherein the center of pressure is computed at each of the determined contact surfaces;
W [0054 - 0055] “As discussed above, the contact 56 may be detected via a variety of collision and penetration techniques, such as, for example, detecting the contact point 56 based on detecting a penetration of the portion 58 of the virtual manipulator 34 into a surface of the virtual object 40 … In one example, the one or more positional quantities may include a frame of reference of the virtual manipulator, a frame of reference of the virtual object, a scaling frame of reference, a position of the contact point, a normal of the contact point, a penetration depth of the contact point, and other suitable types of positional quantities.”
W does not disclose determining a contact force vector and a contact moment vector at each of the common contact frames.
However, M discloses determining a contact force vector and a contact moment vector at each of the common contact frames.
M [0087] “FIG. 17 is a diagram illustrating a constraint technique in accordance with the constraint elements of the object 36. For the positional travels in the X axis and Z axis directions, a so-called fixed joint is set in which a force is applied to the object 36 and the first finger 32 such that the relative speed with the first contact point on the side of the first finger 32 and the second contact point P2 on the side of the object 36 is minimized. Here, in order to represent friction, the upper limit of the force to be applied to the object 36 and the first finger 32 by this fixed joint is a static maximum friction force or a dynamic maximum friction force. On the other hand, for the positional travel in the Z axis direction, constraint conditions are provided so as to prevent the first finger 32 and the object 36 from reacting with each other, consequently sinking into each other. For the twist and swing components, the rotary angle is adjusted to a fraction of an actual rotary angle. If the contact mode is the touch mode or the fric mode, the parameter determination block 53 determines the constraint conditions for these elements for each touching finger.”
W and M are analogous because they pertain to the field of simulating the manipulation of an object.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W because the simulation of M simulates a force applied to an object while reducing the amounts of computation needed for the simulation (See M [0006-0007]).
Regarding Claim 2: W in view of M discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the step of computing the common contact frame further comprises determining geometric characteristics of each contact surface.
W [0077] “In one example, the processor 12 may be configured to simplify the geometry of the virtual objects 40 when performing the processes and techniques for position based energy minimizing physics simulations described herein. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 10A, the processor 12 may be configured to detect the at least two contact points 56 on the surface of the geometry of the virtual object 40. Next, the processor 12 may be configured to generate a simplified geometric representation 72 of the virtual object 40 based on the positions for the at least two contact points 56 that were determined based on the intersections between the line 70 and the surface of the virtual object 40.”
Regarding Claim 3: W in view of M discloses the method as set forth in claim 2, wherein the geometric characteristics are a surface normal, a curvature, or a principle axes of curvature.
W [0078] “FIG. 10B illustrates a schematic view for illustrative purposes of at least two portions 58A and 58B penetrating the surface of the simplified geometric representation 72 that was generated for the virtual object 40. Implementing the method 800, the processor 12 may be configured to determine the closest points on the first articulable portion 58A and the second articulable portion 58B, and determine the line 70 between those two points. Next, the processor 12 may identify contact points between the line 70 and the surface of the virtual object 40, and may generate the simplified geometric representation 72 based on the contact points. That is, the simplified geometric representation 72 is dynamically defined by the positions of the contact points determined via ray casts along the line 70, rather than being approximated as part of a preprocessing step of the virtual object 40 as is typical in prior approaches. FIG. 10A illustrates an example of a cone simplified geometric representation, a cylinder simplified geometric representation, and a sphere simplified geometric representation that have each been dynamically defined by the positions of the contact points along the ray.”
Regarding Claim 4: W in view of M discloses the method as set forth in claim 1.
W does not disclose wherein the step of determining a contact force vector and a contact moment vector further comprises computing projected dynamics of the one or body links in terms of a relative linear and angular motion between the pairs at each common contact frame.
However, M discloses wherein the step of determining a contact force vector and a contact moment vector further comprises computing projected dynamics of the one or body links in terms of a relative linear and angular motion between the pairs at each common contact frame.
M [0056] “On the basis of the determined interaction parameters and constraint conditions, the physical computation block 54 computes a motion of the object 36. The physical computation block 54 computes a motion of the object 36 in accordance with a procedure for simulating physical laws.”
M [0058] “First, the actual motion acquisition block 51 acquires a position of the hand 21 captured by the motion capture 16, a direction of the hand 21, an angle of the finger, and so on through the input block 14 by an operation of the processor 11, thereby storing the information such as the position of the hand 21, the direction of the hand 21, the angle of the finger, and so on into the storage block 12 (step S101).”
M [0086] “Further, Y axis in FIG. 16 is in the same direction as the normal line of the surface of the object 36. X axis and Z axis are in the directions orthogonal to the normal line and the X axis and the Z axis are mutually orthogonal. “Twist” in FIG. 16 is indicative of a component that twistingly rotates around the axis that is the normal line and “swing” is indicative of a component that rotates the axis that is a line orthogonal to the normal line through the contact point P.”
W and M are analogous because they pertain to the field of simulating the manipulation of an object.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W because the simulation of M simulates a force applied to an object while reducing the amounts of computation needed for the simulation (See M [0006-0007]).
Regarding Claim 5: W in view of M discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the geometric shape primitive is a closed shape with a finite volume.
W [0093] “As illustrated with reference to FIG. 17A, the processor 12 may be configured to set a size, position, and orientation of the first and second scaling frames of reference 80A and 80B based on the respective pairs of contact points 78A and 78B. In the illustrated example, the first and second scaling frames of reference 80A and 80B are spheres that have been positioned between the pairs of contact points. The scaling frames of reference may be generated and positioned using the similar logic as used to generate the simplified geometric representations of FIG. 10A.
Regarding Claim 6: W in view of M discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the geometric shape primitive is a cylinder, a sphere, a box, a line swept sphere, a cone, a box swept sphere, a disc swept sphere, a polyhedron, or a generalized cylinder.
W [0077] “For example, the simplified geometric representation 72 may take the form of a rectangular box, a cylinder, a cone, or another idealized geometric shape that has fewer indices and vertices than the mesh of the virtual object 40.”
Regarding Claim 7: W in view of M discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the composition operation is a union, an intersection, or a difference.
W [FIG. 5A & 5B] Virtual object 40 is displayed as a union of the cylindrical shape of a cup and a handle.
Regarding Claim 8: W in view of M discloses the method as set forth in claim 1.
W does not disclose further comprising using constraints in determining a contact force and a torque for each common contact frame.
However, M discloses further comprising using constraints in determining a contact force and a torque for each common contact frame.
M [0049] “FIG. 4 is a diagram for describing a contact mode between the object 36 and the hand 31. The image processing apparatus 1 related with the present embodiment allows intuitive manipulations suited to the intention of a user by changing parameters related with the interaction between the hand 31 and the object 36 in accordance with contact mode. There are three types of contact modes; namely, a touch mode in which the number of fingers touching the object 36 is only one, a fric mode in which the number of fingers is two, and a fix mode in which the number of fingers is three or more. The touch mode is equivalent to a state in which the user is attempting to touch the object 36 and the fric mode is equivalent to a state in which the user is putting the object 36 between fingers. The fix mode is equivalent to a state in which the user grasps the object 36. In the touch mode and the fric mode, a force from contact point P between the object 36 and a finger is applied to the object 36. In the touch mode and the fric mode, different interaction parameters are set. Details of the interaction parameters will be described later. On the other hand, in the fix mode, the object 36 is fixed to the hand 31 of the user. To be more specific, in the fix mode, the image processing apparatus 1 moves the object 36 and the hand 31 inside the virtual space such that the relative speed between fix point J of the object 36 and the hand 31 of the user becomes 0.”
M [0086] “FIG. 16 is a diagram for describing constraint elements of the object 36; especially, if the contact mode is the touch mode or the fric mode, this drawing is indicative of the constraint elements between the finger and the object 36. A friction frustum 46 illustrated in FIG. 16 is indicative that there occurs a friction between the first finger 32 and the object 36 at the contact point P. Further, Y axis in FIG. 16 is in the same direction as the normal line of the surface of the object 36. X axis and Z axis are in the directions orthogonal to the normal line and the X axis and the Z axis are mutually orthogonal. “Twist” in FIG. 16 is indicative of a component that twistingly rotates around the axis that is the normal line and “swing” is indicative of a component that rotates the axis that is a line orthogonal to the normal line through the contact point P.”
W and M are analogous because they pertain to the field of simulating the manipulation of an object.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W because the simulation of M simulates a force applied to an object while reducing the amounts of computation needed for the simulation (See M [0006-0007]).
Regarding Claim 9: W in view of M disclose the method as set forth in claim 8.
W does not disclose wherein the constraints incorporate friction equations and non-penetration equations.
However, M discloses wherein the constraints incorporate friction equations and non-penetration equations.
M [0055] “The parameter determination block 53 detects the number of fingers in contact with the object 36 inside the virtual space on the basis of the detected contact and, on the basis of the detected number of fingers, determines interaction parameters for obtaining the interaction between the finger and the object 36. Further, the interaction parameters include a friction parameter related with friction which is computed on the basis of a friction coefficient determined by the number of fingers and the size of the superimposition between the finger and the object 36. Besides, the parameter determination block 53 determines constraint conditions in accordance with interaction parameters, these constraint conditions providing constraints between the hand 31 to which the fingers belong and the object 36”
M [0056] “On the basis of the determined interaction parameters and constraint conditions, the physical computation block 54 computes a motion of the object 36. The physical computation block 54 computes a motion of the object 36 in accordance with a procedure for simulating physical laws.”
M [0017] “In a still difference embodiment of the present invention, if the number of the detected fingers is three or more, the parameter determination means may determine constraint conditions for fixing a relative position between the object and a hand to which the finger belongs and the computation means may compute a motion of the object such that the constraint conditions are satisfied.”
W and M are analogous because they pertain to the field of simulating the manipulation of an object.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of M with W because the simulation of M simulates a force applied to an object while reducing the amounts of computation needed for the simulation (See M [0006-0007]).
Regarding Claim 10: W in view of M disclose the method as set forth in claim 1, wherein an object in the one or more objects is defined as an object or a body link of another robot or in an environment the robot is interacting with.
W [0077] “Next, the processor 12 may be configured to generate a simplified geometric representation 72 of the virtual object 40 based on the positions for the at least two contact points 56 that were determined based on the intersections between the line 70 and the surface of the virtual object 40. In the illustrated example, the processor 12 generated a sphere as the simplified geometric representation 72 to represent the virtual object 40 shown in the examples of FIGS. 5A and 5B.”
Conclusion
All Claims are rejected.
The prior art made record of and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application 2016/0357258 A1
This reference discloses an apparatus for providing haptic force feedback to a user interacting with virtual objects in virtual space.
U.S. Patent Application 2019/0087011 A1
This reference discloses a control system and method for stably controlling two virtual objects constrained to each other by two hands in virtual space.
U.S. Patent Application 2020/0306997 A1
This reference discloses a robotic surgical system and all the parts associated with it.
U.S. Patent Application 2014/0081612 A1
This reference discloses a method for determining forces on a rigid body at least partially immersed in a fluid medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-8533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiner’s fax phone number (571) 272-8533.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published a applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
STT
/SCOTT THANH BINH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights